Objective The risk-benefit profile of antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder is controversial. When conclusive evidence is lacking, expert consensus can guide treatment decisions. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to seek consensus recommendations on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorders. Method An expert task force iteratively developed consensus through serial consensus-based revisions using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new or reworded items and items that needed to be rerated. This process resulted in the final ISBD Task Force clinical recommendations on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder. Results There is striking incongruity between the wide use of and the weak evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in bipolar disorder. Few well-designed, long-term trials of prophylactic benefits have been conducted, and there is insufficient evidence for treatment benefits with antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers. A major concern is the risk for mood switch to hypomania, mania, and mixed states. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 12 statements on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder. Conclusions Because of limited data, the task force could not make broad statements endorsing antidepressant use but acknowledged that individual bipolar patients may benefit from antidepressants. Regarding safety, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion may have lower rates of manic switch than tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants and norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The frequency and severity of antidepressant-associated mood elevations appear to be greater in bipolar I than bipolar II disorder. Hence, in bipolar I patients antidepressants should be prescribed only as an adjunct to mood-stabilizing medications.

Our analysis reveals that the MCCB represents a good starting point for assessing cognitive deficits in research studies of bipolar disorder, but that other tasks including more complex verbal learning measures and tests of executive function should also be considered in assessing cognitive compromise in bipolar disorder. Several promising cognitive tasks that require further study in bipolar disorder are also presented.

Together with the findings in early BP and individuals at genetic risk for BP, current findings suggest that neurodevelopmental factors might play a significant role in cognitive deficits in BP and do not support the notion of progressive cognitive decline in most patients with BP.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder share genetic liability, and some structural brain abnormalities are common to both conditions. First-degree relatives of patients with schizophrenia (FDRs-SZ) show similar brain abnormalities to patients, albeit with smaller effect sizes. Imaging findings in first-degree relatives of patients with bipolar disorder (FDRs-BD) have been inconsistent in the past, but recent studies report regionally greater volumes compared with control subjects. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of global and subcortical brain measures of 6008 individuals (1228 FDRs-SZ, 852 FDRs-BD, 2246 control subjects, 1016 patients with schizophrenia, 666 patients with bipolar disorder) from 34 schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder family cohorts with standardized methods. Analyses were repeated with a correction for intracranial volume (ICV) and for the presence of any psychopathology in the relatives and control subjects. RESULTS: FDRs-BD had significantly larger ICV (d = 10.16, q , .05 corrected), whereas FDRs-SZ showed smaller thalamic volumes than control subjects (d = 20.12, q , .05 corrected). ICV explained the enlargements in the brain measures in FDRs-BD. In FDRs-SZ, after correction for ICV, total brain, cortical gray matter, cerebral white matter, cerebellar gray and white matter, and thalamus volumes were significantly smaller; the cortex was thinner (d , 20.09, q , .05 corrected); and third ventricle was larger (d = 10.15, q , .05 corrected). The findings were not explained by psychopathology in the relatives or control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite shared genetic liability, FDRs-SZ and FDRs-BD show a differential pattern of structural brain abnormalities, specifically a divergent effect in ICV. This may imply that the neurodevelopmental trajectories leading to brain anomalies in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are distinct.

No abstract